Optimistic For Change

We've featured the Prison Reform Trust quite a bit recently and their brilliant work in holding the dreadful former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab to account, but I hadn't realised they have a new Director. I think the following from InsideTime indicates that the good work is likely to continue and it's particularly interesting to hear the reasoning given for 'jumping ship' from a dream HMPPS post - if only Probation could break free.....   

‘Holder of hope’!

New Director of PRT puts optimism and hope at the centre of her new role – ‘lived experience’ invaluable

In 2017, HMP Liverpool was the subject of one of the most critical inspection reports in years by the HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which found there was an “abject failure” to provide suitable conditions. Described as one of the worst prisons in Europe, the prison, better known as Walton, was found to be ridden with litter, dirt, rats and cockroaches – and had huge problems with violence and drugs. Conditions were so poor, foreign judges feared it would be inhumane to send suspects back to the UK if there was a risk they would be held at HMP Liverpool.

Pia Sinha came to prominence as the troubleshooter who, along with a dedicated team, turned the prison around within three years to such an extent that the then Prisons Inspector Peter Clarke said the “squalor and filth” had gone and there was now a “culture of care” with a “real change in the quality of leadership”. She spent twenty-three years in the prison service before ‘jumping ship’ and joining one of the most prominent prison reform organisations as Director of the Prison Reform Trust. Describing her new role as, “Truly an honour and a privilege” Pia Sinha said, “Prison reform is in my DNA.”

Shock

Sinha had actually been the deputy governor of HMP Liverpool four years earlier. She says that then it was, “Alright, as far as local Victorian prisons go. There was a good governor and the two of us were able to do some good things and we’d had a fairly decent inspection. But to go back a mere four years later and to see how badly it had deteriorated was an absolute shock. I remember on my first day I thought … I’m just going to grip the rail and go around and have a look – what I saw actually brought me to tears. But I suppose when you are trying to fix places that are terrible you have to have some kind of emotional connection with them and I felt really emotionally connected with that prison. The odd thing was that once I started to make things better, it wasn’t that hard. It was bloody hard work but it wasn’t that hard because everyone wanted to do the same.”

Name clearing

How did she motivate her team? “What I did early on was have a full and frank conversation with the team that existed and to say look, this is going to be bloody hard work you know. So for the people that were already there, who had sort of presided over its decline – they were people who were really tired, fed up, negative – and I asked them, ‘Do you have the heart for this?’ Some of them said, ‘You know what, no, I don’t.’ The people that weren’t up for it, for legitimate reasons, we found them something else to do. And the ones that sat opposite me, saying, ‘Pia, I want to be part of this – I want to clear my name and make it better’, they worked so hard. Then I got some new people in – that combination was just magical.”

Ship jumping

Sinha worked for the prison service for twenty-three years, joining as a higher psychologist at HMP/YOI Holloway in 1999 – then worked as a senior psychologist at Wandsworth before taking up the post of head of safer prisons. Following that, she became head of reducing re-offending at Wormwood Scrubs. She then took up her first deputy governor role at Send, and subsequently at Downview and Liverpool. She took up her last post as Director of Women in November 2021, taking responsibility for the 10 public sector women’s prisons and oversight of the two private prisons. So why did she jump ship?

“I’ve done quite a lot of reflecting. I’d have to take it back to how the story unfolded. Eighteen months ago, when I got the role of Director of Women in prison post, I felt delighted; I felt it was my dream job. It was a rare privilege. But having gone on to become director of women I found that as a senior civil servant I was getting further and further removed from the front line and it felt that the proportion of the work I was doing was much more about managing upwards and trying to influence in a really awkward complicated non-direct way. And I was feeling frustrations. I also felt that the directorate was not adequately resourced for the complexity of the job. I think that within the women’s directorate there is so much risk, especially around the high levels of self-harm, suicide, pregnant women coming in, women with mental health issues. If things went wrong, and they did, they got immediately escalated to the press, immediately escalated to ministers – and it just felt like a really high risk part of the system. I didn’t think I could change things at the pace I wanted to.”

Excellent team

Does she think she can change things now heading up the PRT? “Well, I feel more optimistic about change. That wasn’t what led me to think ‘I’ll apply for this job’. I think part of this job, as a leader, is to maintain optimism about change and hope – and be the holder of hope.” So how does she plan to influence those in power to make the necessary changes? “I think that’s just one part of what PRT does,” she says, “Its one part of what they do very well. And I think you have to give Peter (Peter Dawson, former Director who retired), enormous credit for the steadfast way he did this. PRT’s reputation is the money in the bank. This reputation allows for us to have a really strong lobbying voice in the system. I think that work should and has to continue. We have excellent people in the team who really know their stuff. But something I’m intrigued about is to ask how do we harvest all of this amazing information that we are getting when we have got a very strong network of lived experience voice? It’s better than I’ve ever known it to be. We also have incredible research going on. I want to use the intel and the information that we are getting and directly be able to look at how we can generalise all of that towards the front line.”

Reacting to the resignation of former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab over bullying claims Sinha said: “The vital and complex work of the Ministry of Justice has been undermined by Dominic Raab’s reckless meddling and his inability to interact professionally with his senior officials. A new Justice Secretary is an opportunity for a reset on Dominic Raab’s damaging changes to the parole system. Changes to open conditions transfers have undermined the progression of prisoners and effective arrangements for public protection. A single view procedure forbidding state appointed officials – including forensic psychologists and prison and probation staff – from making recommendations for release or transfer to the Parole Board have been ruled unlawful by the High Court. The Victims and Prisoners Bill currently before Parliament undermines the independence and expertise of the Parole Board and raises wider constitutional concerns regarding judicial independence and U.K. compliance with human rights obligations. His successor should urgently review the Bill and Raab’s other changes to the parole system as a result and adopt a more measured approach.”

Erwin James

To Recommend Or Not?

Yesterday there was a Westminster Hall debate on the future of the Parole Board and given Dominic Raab's removal of Probation Officers being able to make recommendations, it clearly has important implications for the Probation Service.   

Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Parole Board.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I come to this debate on the future of the Parole Board not as an expert in jurisprudence, or the theology of jurisprudence, but from my experience as a constituency MP and a member of the Science and Technology Committee. That Committee looks at, among other areas, how public bodies and Government Departments use evidence when coming to decisions. On 7 September 2022, the Science and Technology Committee had a really interesting session looking at the basis that the Parole Board had for making what are very difficult decisions, in many cases, about who to release on parole. I advise any interested person to read the transcript of that session.

Unusually, I want to start by thanking the Secretary of State for Justice. At the last Justice questions, I brought up the case of Andrew Longmire, also known as Andrew Barlow and previously, I think, as Andrew Seamark, a man who was given many life sentences, the last one in 2017, for rape. I asked the Secretary of State whether he would look into the matter, and he released a statement yesterday saying that he was asking the Parole Board for a reconsideration of that case. I am grateful to him for doing that. I am sure that the victims and the families of victims of Andrew Barlow who have contacted me are also grateful.

I would like to thank Neal Keeling, the Manchester Evening News journalist, who has written a number of stories about this case in that paper. Without those stories, I would not have known that Andrew Barlow was likely to be released, and neither would the families of victims and the victims themselves. I have had a large number of harrowing emails from people describing how their families and personal lives have been destroyed by this man and the multiple rapes he carried out over a period of time.

One of the issues in this case, which I obviously will not go into a great deal of detail about, is that Andrew Barlow was given his first life sentences over 30 years ago, and the progress on DNA analysis meant that the police went back on cold cases and found that he had committed two further rapes, so he was given two further life sentences. Amazingly, he said that he did not remember them. That factor should be taken into account in any Parole Board hearing. If the Parole Board wants to know whether people are remorseful and have changed their view, that is an indication of callousness. As many of the victims and their families who have written to me say, the man is a threat to them and to their families and should remain behind bars. I hope that the reconsideration leads to that.

Let me look at how the Parole Board operates and the decision taken by the Government immediately to change some of the process and carry out a full review, which was stimulated by the John Worboys case. There was a public outcry that he was going to be released. That case made many people think that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way the Parole Board was working. Following judicial review, the Court came to the view that

“the Parole Board didn’t do its job properly.”

That is an understatement of what happened. The Parole Board did not look at all the evidence and it did not look at the court decision properly when deciding that Worboys was going to be released. He was a category A prisoner, which means the Secretary of State thought he was a threat to society, but the decision was taken that he could apply for parole.

Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate, and I rise to speak as co-chair of the board of the Justice Unions parliamentary group. In raising the John Worboys case, does he share my concern that particular emphasis was placed on advice from a psychologist and that advice from probation officers no longer includes recommendations? Although their advice is received, the issue of probation officer recommendations is a particular concern for the union Napo. Perhaps the Government should revisit the decision not to receive specific recommendations from probation officers.

Graham Stringer

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I know the trade union believes that recommendations should be made. I have read a lot of the arguments both ways—from the trade union and from the Government, as well as from many of the professional advisers. The case against what the right hon. Lady says is that when there is a recommendation, there is a temptation, for any human being, not to look at the evidence directly. The Parole Board should make its decision based on the evidence before it and its consideration of that evidence, rather than a recommendation. I also see the other side—what people who know the prisoner think, and considering what the probation officers think and recommend, which is important. It is a moot point, but I would not criticise the decision completely to take out recommendations.

Liz Saville Roberts

I agree that there is a debate to be had on the effect of that. Specifically, I hope the Minister will respond with respect to impact assessments following the change in procedure and the removal of recommendations from probation officers, particularly regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP—imprisonment for public protection—prisoners.

Graham Stringer

I ask the Minister to respond to that. Let me make a further point about the right hon. Lady’s intervention. The Science and Technology Committee was told in evidence—I think by Professor Shute; I hope I have that right—that when recommendations were made, it was rare to the point of being zero that the Parole Board went against the recommendation. That might or might not indicate that the Parole Board was not reading the evidence as it had been presented to the board. It is easy just to take the recommendations.

Let me turn to third parole case that, as a constituency MP, I spent a lot of time on a few years ago. Thirty years ago today, Suzanne Capper had a funeral and was buried after having been tortured for a week and murdered. I was not an MP 30 years ago, but it was in my constituency. She attended the school that I had attended many years before. It was a horrific case. Four people were convicted of her murder; three have been released, and one is up for parole. In the 1960s, the four people found guilty would have been hanged. I am against capital punishment, but I want the public to have confidence in the justice system. They were guilty of a crime every bit as horrific as the moors murders—Brady and Hindley were never released. Even though three of them have been released since I made representations to the Parole Board on behalf of Suzanne Capper’s mother, which were effectively ignored, I believe that one of the murderers should not be released.

When people learn that three of the murderers, and potentially a fourth, will be walking the streets of this country after that terrible murder, they will not think that justice has been done. I would like an assessment not just of how the Parole Board operates but of who is considered for parole. I do not think those murderers should have been. Although one cannot just use the general view that they should not be, I think there is a sense, when people such as that are walking the streets of this country, that justice has been undermined and has not been done.

Those three cases have brought me, as a constituency MP and as somebody who has been watching what has happened to the Parole Board, to consider that the Parole Board should be reformed in many ways. When the Science and Technology Committee took evidence, virtually all the witnesses said that the Parole Board previously operated in private—in secret. Sometimes it made decisions just on the papers in front of it, sometimes it listened to the criminal, and sometimes statements from the victims were read out. We all accept in court cases that justice must not only be done but should be seen to be done, but that has not been the case with the arguments the Parole Board considers. There may be a case for keeping some privacy, because victims and their families may be mentioned, but when a decision is taken to release back into the community somebody who has done appalling things, the public are entitled to know what the basis for that was and what the arguments and evidence were.

Liz Saville Roberts

I apologise for not making a speech today, but I am meeting Rhianon Bragg, whose case I raised in Justice questions. She has now received a letter of apology from the Secretary of State for Justice. Her medical, mental health details were given in a dossier to her abuser. She had previously applied to the Parole Board for his release hearing to be held in public, and that has been refused.

This mistreatment of a victim by the criminal justice system in itself warrants a public Parole Board hearing, because the public need to know why that happened. She has now been advised to apply to attend the Parole Board hearing in private but, frankly, this case is an example of it being in the public interest of justice for there to be an appeal procedure for the Parole Board. Far more Parole Board hearings should be in public, as the hon. Gentleman is calling for.

Graham Stringer

I agree with the right hon. Lady, and thank her for her intervention.

We do not only want transparency; there needs to be an examination of the statistics. We were told on the Science and Technology Committee that the percentage of prisoners applying for parole and getting it had gradually increased over the last 25 years from 10% to 30%—that is a huge change. My suspicion is that, even though it will not be down in writing, there is tremendous pressure on the number of people in prison. There is tremendous pressure on the costs; it costs a lot of money to keep somebody in prison. Somewhere in the background, without it being stated explicitly, there is pressure to get more people out, and that—probably—means that some people are being released into the community who are a risk to it.

The statistics on reoffending appear to be small. We were told on the Committee that in recent times 12 people have been released who have committed murder, and there have been a number of other serious crimes. As percentages, those are very low, but obviously those crimes are an absolute catastrophe for every family who has lost somebody to a murderer, and for the person who was murdered, and an indication that something has gone seriously wrong.

The Parole Board keeps for three years statistics on offences by people released on parole. When we questioned the chief executive of the Parole Board, we were told, “Well, after three years there is not a lot to learn, because Parole Board members may have changed and the process may be slightly different.” I do not accept that. Many of these prisoners are in for life, and the statistics that are kept should be kept for the whole of their lives, until they die of natural causes or go back to prison, so that we really know what is happening.

There was also a serious conflict of evidence between the Parole Board and some of the academic witnesses about how likely repeat offending was. According to the notes we had as Committee members, and what was said, there was a 25% reoffending rate for sexual offences against children who were non-family members. I have to say that the Parole Board did not accept that figure, but the academics were clear.

The other dispute over the evidence was that, in looking at the three-year period, many of the academics said that there is a curve showing that offending for certain offences was more likely the longer the period. Again, the Parole Board disputed that. If there are good records, these things can be verified factually; we should know what the answer is.

When it comes to the process of deciding whether somebody should be released, the Parole Board has limited tools. Psychiatrists and psychologists give reports. I say as a scientist, as well as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, that sciences such as astronomy and many other branches of physics are predictive: we know where Saturn or Mars will be in 10 months, 10 years or 100 years.

Psychiatry and psychology are not predictive. The evidence before the Science and Technology Committee was that the psychiatric and psychological methods used for assessment were 20 years out of date, and that there were better ways to do it. Even with the better ways, there is no certainty around the risk of a prisoner reoffending. Even though the tools used at present are better, they are limited.

The second point is that statistically, given a series of factors, prediction is more accurate. On a statistical basis, it can be said that, given those factors, 2% of prisoners will reoffend, but we do not know which 2%. It is important to know the risk, but none of that gives a guarantee that a person will not reoffend. It is worth considering that against the background of the large increase in the number of people being released back into the community.

I have tried to stay with the factual basis of what the science says, what the science can and cannot do, and the practical mistakes made by the Parole Board. We heard very concerning evidence that a sex offender treatment programme increased rather than reduced the chance of reoffending. That programme should be looked at. There should be a clear definition of what is meant by public protection and how it is measured. In addition to that sex offender programme, there should be a proper assessment of all rehabilitation programmes and where they take place.

I have already mentioned that Worboys was a category A prisoner when a decision was taken to consider him for parole. We were told that he was not on his own. We were also told that it was almost unheard of 25 years ago for category C prisoners to be considered for parole, let alone categories B and A. That seems to be one reason for the increase in prisoners being released. The previous process of rehabilitation programmes in prison, with people moving down the category list into open prisons, is less common, although it has not been abandoned. There are certainly many exceptions to that rule. We did not hear any reasons why those exceptions had been made.

I have talked for quite a long time. These issues are important—I know our constituents consider them to be important—and very difficult ones. I refer people who think that the Parole Board can be objective to what I think is not a nice but a rather brilliant film by Stanley Kubrick, “A Clockwork Orange”. It has a different ending, incidentally, from that in Anthony Burgess’s book. Had he been alive, Burgess would have been at one time a constituent of mine; he was born and brought up in my constituency.

Alex DeLarge, the villain of the piece—a hooligan and rapist—goes through all sorts of psychological brainwashing processes to turn him into a model citizen. At the end of the film, when the establishment says, “This has worked; we have now turned Alex into a decent human being”, he turns round and winks at the camera. In a rather unpleasant way, that is a celebration of how the human spirit cannot be brainwashed and he, one guesses, is still the nasty person he was at the beginning of the film.

The Parole Board has a difficult job in assessing cases. It is a necessary job, but it has gone away from the standards of evidence and from being able to tell us that it has been thorough with the procedures. In two of the cases that I have brought up, the Parole Board has failed to tell the victims and families, and that should be an impediment to somebody leaving. The probation service wrote to me and said that it is difficult to find families 20 years later. It might be difficult, but if it uses the local press and tells people and is transparent, it might be a great deal easier to find members of families who have moved and changed their telephone numbers.

I am not saying that the Parole Board’s job is easy—it is difficult—but it has not been done as thoroughly and well as it could have been. People have been put at risk and potentially put at risk. The Government need to change the policy on the basis of the evidence and make sure that the public are secure by not allowing some people to get parole and by making sure that they are as certain as they can be that some other people pose no risk to the public.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

--//--

Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on having secured this hugely important debate to highlight the urgent challenges facing the parole system. Much of my speech will reflect and build on his concerns.

My hon. Friend mentioned the deeply distressing case of Andrew Barlow, formerly known as Andrew Longmire, and I echo his concerns. I, too, welcome the Lord Chancellor’s referral of the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration that was announced yesterday; it is a testament to the hard work and campaigning of the victims. I also put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend and the vital work he has done, championing those victims’ cause in Parliament. As a former journalist, I also commend the role of the media in this particular case. However, it is totally unacceptable that the victims and their families did not receive the expected prior notification of Barlow’s planned release. Sadly, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), such failures are regularly repeated.

I am aware that the head of the Parole Board has expressed regret at the fact that some of Barlow’s victims were not informed, but that is simply not good enough. I note that when Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee last year, she confirmed:

“It is in statute that we must consult victims of serious crime on their view of release, and for them to also give our victim liaison officers a view regarding the protections that we need to put in place to reduce their concerns about that individual if the Parole Board does choose to release—particularly the obvious concern that they could bump into them in the street.”

It is deeply worrying that, even with a case as serious as this one, mistakes have been made.

I was horrified to learn that one of the victims, who still has nightmares three decades on as a result of the horror of Mr Barlow’s offending, only found out about his potential release, as we have heard, by reading the Manchester Evening News. We cannot allow our justice system to continue to treat victims as an afterthought. All of Andrew Barlow’s victims should have been signed up to the victim contact scheme and received communications from a victim liaison officer regarding how long he would be in prison, when he was up for parole and when he was likely to be released. They should have been told how to make a victim’s statement at the parole hearing. Such failings can retraumatise victims and seriously damage the public’s confidence in our justice system.

The Parole Board’s statutory purpose is to ensure that people who are dangerous are not released back into the community. It is a system designed to ensure public safety and to protect victims of crime, but after 12 years of Tory incompetence and chaos, our justice system is on its knees. Before the Minister uses the P-word, let me say that it was chaotic before the pandemic. Public confidence in the system is already near breaking point and with each further failing it gets closer to collapse. The Sentencing Council’s 2022 research report tells us that 45% of those surveyed were not confident in the criminal justice system’s effectiveness and 44% were not confident in its fairness. Does the Minister share my shock at those statistics? Public trust, efficacy and fairness of criminal justice are vital, or we will see fewer victims coming forward to report crimes and even greater numbers withdrawing midway through the process.

The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised to support all victims of crime and do right by victims, but the Government simply have not addressed these ongoing problems. How can year-long court delays and chronic staffing shortages from one end of the system to another contribute to a system that is doing right by victims? The Minister will not be surprised by my next question: when will the victims Bill come before the House?

It is clear to us all that the Government have completely lost their grip on criminal justice. Labour is the only party that can be trusted to deliver on law and order. We know that careful parole decisions are essential to reducing reoffending and its costs to society. Reoffending costs our society an astonishing £18 billion each year according to the Government’s own figures. Changes to the parole system introduced by the Government in June last year prohibit probation officers from giving a view or making recommendations to the Parole Board on progression or release of prisoners, thus removing an important element of professional expert knowledge from the process. In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, Martin Jones—CEO of the Parole Board—emphasised this expertise by saying,

“It is really important to make the point that we get evidence from prison and probation officers on whether a person is safe to be released or not, and work by the Ministry of Justice some years ago suggested that 90% of our decisions are in line with the evidence provided by report writers. That provides some evidence of consistency.”

In July last year, the three recognised Probation Service unions—Napo, Unison and the GMB—penned a letter to the Secretary of State with warnings about the serious consequences of the decision to prevent probation staff from making recommendations in written reports and oral evidence to the Parole Board under any circumstance. The ability to do so has long been a vital and valued part of the parole process. The unions warned that the decision 

“severely endangers the ability of the Probation Service to protect victims of the most serious offences, and indeed the wider public, from the risk of serious harm posed by many individuals involved in the parole system.”

It further de-professionalises this vital public service role, leading to staff demoralisation, and exacerbating the retention problems that the Probation Service already faces. Prison and probation officers work hard day in, day out to deliver justice, and yet again they have been dismissed, undervalued and let down by this Tory Government. Speaking to the Ministry of Justice last year, a senior probation official said:

“It is extremely difficult and very disappointing that the Parole Board is the last to hear about important decisions which strike at the very heart of the difficult decisions we are asked to make. It makes our members’ already difficult job close to impossible.”

In fact, Napo members raised concerns about having to supervise someone in the community who they would not have recommended for release. They talked about the extreme stress that could cause, as well as the increased risk of further serious offences.

I am interested to hear from the Minister why removing probation recommendations was not included in the root-and-branch review of the Parole Board, and why there was no prior consultation with all stakeholders before the changes were implemented. Napo is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Will the Minister share what impact assessment has been carried out on that particular issue, and confirm whether the Government sought the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?

The changes allow for the Secretary of State to make recommendations. That happens only in the most serious of cases—around 150 of the 6,000 that the Parole Board deals with each year. The remaining cases will now have no recommendation given, which seems astonishing to me. I ask the Minister for further information on the so-called “critical few” cases that the Secretary of State will be involved in. Can the Minister share how many oral hearings have been attended by a Secretary of State’s representative in recent times? In how many of those oral hearings did the Secretary of State’s representative recommend no progression—either from closed or open conditions, to open conditions from closed conditions, or release on licence?

Public hearings, the other major change introduced last year, were consulted on via the root-and-branch review. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned that as well. Personally, I am in favour of increasing the transparency of such hearings. When done properly, they could help to improve public confidence in the system. I know there have been only a few public hearings since their introduction, but could the Minister provide an update on how they are running, and how much engagement there has been with them? I understand that a remote link has to be set up to allow viewing, so I assume the Government have some sense of how many people are attending.

Finally, our probation service is still reeling from the reckless transforming rehabilitation programme, a failed experiment in privatisation. That disaster proceeded because the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), failed to listen to the warnings of those with the wealth of experience and expertise. I sincerely hope the current Secretary of State does not make the same mistake with parole.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair and serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. His speech was thoughtful, deliberative and balanced. He spoke in the light of some of the most appalling and horrific crimes, murders and rapes that we have known in our lifetimes. The thoughts of all of us in this House are with the victims of those terrible crimes and their families. Their loss—their tragedy—does not dim with time. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, victims must always be paramount in the system. The system must work for them and must be seen to do so.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the vital and difficult role that the Parole Board plays, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, in protecting the public by making decisions about the release of some of the most serious offenders in our system. It is critical that the parole system works as effectively as possible to keep the public safe. That is, and must be, the top priority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the September hearing of the Science and Technology Committee, of which he is a member. I have read the transcript of that hearing and agree that it was important and useful. He rightly said that statistics are important, as is understanding the statistics. He also said, and he was right, that statistics can only ever take us so far, because a serious reoffence is the most complete catastrophe—I think those were the words he used—for an individual and their family.

He made a specific point about reoffending statistics. I want to clarify that under the probation serious further offence procedures, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service captures data on every serious further offence that is committed by an offender who has been released by the Parole Board, regardless of how long afterwards that serious further offence was committed. I will write to him with the data behind that.

As has been mentioned by Members, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the Government conducted a root-and-branch review of the parole system, which was published last year. It set out our proposals for making further improvements. I will say a little about the measures that we are taking, as well as seeking to address some of the points that colleagues have made.

We have heard about the impact on victims when offenders are considered for release by the Parole Board. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton for his unfailing support for constituents who have been so dreadfully affected by serious offending. These are difficult and deeply distressing times for them, and I want to apologise to any who have not received the service that they should have. Their experiences demonstrate why it is so important to ensure that they, and the victims of other terrible crimes, are properly supported.

To that end, I will explain the measures that we are taking to improve the way the victim contact scheme operates, particularly when it comes to tracing and working with victims of offences that were committed before the scheme was established. I hope my comments about the action that we are taking will reassure colleagues about how seriously we take these matters and that, despite the problems that sometimes regrettably occur, we do have an effective system for keeping victims informed about the parole process.

One of the Government’s priorities, as set out in the root-and-branch review, is to improve openness and transparency. We want to enhance public understanding and bolster confidence. It is clear that in all cases, victims need to be kept updated on what is going on in their case, and we are looking at ways to improve that.

Before I say more about our plans to reform the system, it might be helpful if I first briefly go through the legislative framework within which the Parole Board operates. The Parole Board’s purpose is to decide whether prisoners convicted of serious, violent or sexual offences, who are serving certain types of sentences, can be safely released into the community on licence. The sentences dealt with by the Parole Board include life sentences, indeterminate sentences for public protection, extended determinate sentences and the sentences of those who are recalled to prison for breaching the terms of their licence. When passing sentence, the trial judge will set a minimum custodial period, which the offender must serve in prison for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Once the minimum period has been served, the Secretary of State is required to refer these cases to the Parole Board so that the prisoner’s suitability for release on licence can be considered.

That decision is about the offender’s current risk, having completed the part of the sentence that the judge has said must be spent in prison for the offences committed. The wording of the statutory test for release is clear. The Parole Board must not give a direction for a prisoner’s release unless the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined in prison. When applying the public protection test, the Parole Board needs to consider whether there is a risk of serious harm. If release is directed, the Secretary of State must comply with that direction unless it appears legally flawed, in which case the Secretary of State has the power to ask for the decision to be reconsidered.

The Parole Board is an independent body with expertise in risk assessment. It takes robust and fully-evidenced decisions. The board takes public protection very seriously. In around three out of four of the cases that are referred to the board, it decides to keep the offender in prison for the protection of the public. Where the board does direct release, less than 0.5% of the people in those cases go on to commit a serious further offence within three years. Any serious further offence is, of course, a tragedy and is fully investigated. The vast majority of offenders released by the board do not go on to cause serious further harm.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the Worboys case. That awful case highlighted the need for improved transparency, especially for victims, about the reasons for a Parole Board release decision. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in 2018 we introduced decision summaries, which are now routinely provided to victims and others to explain why the board has directed a prisoner’s release. The case also highlighted the need for a better and easier way to challenge parole decisions if they can be shown to be flawed. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, which the Secretary of State uses in cases in which he considers that a release decision should be looked at again.

We intend to go further to ensure that the system is as robust as possible. The root-and-branch review set out key proposed reforms that aim to ensure that public protection is the overriding consideration for release decisions and to introduce additional safeguards into the system.

Graham Stringer

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he respond to the two points that I made in the area that he is considering at the moment? One was that there seems to be an unexplained and dramatic increase in the 25% of prisoners who, as he just mentioned, are being released. The other was that category A, B and C prisoners are also being recommended for parole, which was not previously the case.

Damian Hinds

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman on the precise numbers in correspondence, if I may. The important point is that every case is considered individually on its merits; that has to be at the heart of how the Parole Board goes about its business.

We will make the release test more prescriptive, so it is absolutely clear that prisoners should continue to be detained unless it can be demonstrated that they no longer present a risk of further serious offending. Secondly, for a top tier of the most serious offenders—I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North asked for clarification on what the tier consists of; it is those sentenced for murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, and terrorist offences—we will legislate to give Ministers the power to refuse a release decision made by the Parole Board if they disagree with the board’s view that the release test has been met. That will provide an additional safeguard and, I hope, further reassurance to victims that for the most serious offenders, including murderers and rapists, there will be oversight by Ministers, who will be able to prevent release if that is considered necessary to keep the public safe.

Thirdly, we will legislate to ensure that the Parole Board’s membership includes more people with law enforcement backgrounds, who will sit on panels dealing with the most serious cases. Having more members who are, for instance, ex-police officers with first-hand experience of tackling crime in our communities and dealing with serious offenders will further enhance the Parole Board’s expertise in assessing the risk such offenders present. The measures that I have described will require primary legislation, which, to respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, we will introduce at the earliest opportunity.

We have already taken other steps within the system to enhance public protection and increase confidence. For example, we have reformed the way indeterminate sentence prisoners are moved to open prison conditions, and Ministers can block such moves if they do not meet new, tougher criteria. Also, we have introduced a new system whereby Ministers can submit an overarching view to the Parole Board about release in some of the most serious and troubling cases before any decisions are taken. That ensures that it is made very clear to the board at the outset if there is a case where Ministers would be opposed to the prisoner’s release.

I return to the important issue of victims’ experience of the parole system, which is at the heart of the case that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton made, and the measures that we are taking on it. When offenders are being assessed for release by the Parole Board, it can be a very difficult and distressing time for victims. We want to improve the way victims are engaged in that process, give them additional opportunities to hear about what is going on, and make them feel and know that they have more of a voice.

The mechanism by which victims are kept informed about parole is the victim contact scheme, which is operated by the probation service. It was first established in 2001 and applies to victims of sexual and violent offending where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. Victims who have signed up to the contact scheme should always be notified when a prisoner is coming up for potential release.

Victims have a choice about joining the victim contact scheme. If they choose to join, they will be kept up to date with key developments, including prisoners’ parole reviews, parole decisions and release decisions, by a dedicated victim liaison officer. During parole cases, victims can make a victim personal statement to the board, setting out the impact of the offence against them, and they may read it aloud to the Parole Board panel if an oral hearing is convened.

Victims also have the legal right to make requests about licence conditions, including a no-contact condition and an exclusion zone that prohibits the offender from entering areas where the victim lives, works or travels to frequently. Victims can also request a summary of the Parole Board decision and, where the Parole Board has directed release, they can ask the Secretary of State to consider applying to the Parole Board for the decision to be reconsidered.

It should be noted that some victims choose not to sign up to the victim contact scheme. Understandably, they may seek to do what they can to put the events of the case behind them. If there is no response to a second and third invitation to join the scheme, the probation service will properly respect their wishes and not keep contacting them. Victims can, however, join the scheme at any time, even if they have previously said no. A system in which all victims are notified about parole releases would not be practical for a number of reasons. For example, as I have said, not all victims will want to receive information, and unwanted contact from the service could retraumatise them.

The scheme was set up in 2001. For cases in the system before then, in relation to the victims of offences committed many years ago, it does not operate retrospectively. However, in the most serious and notorious of cases, such as some of those that have been referred to in this debate, the probation service should ask the police, through multi-agency public protection arrangements —known as MAPPAs—for support with tracing victims. In the Andrew Barlow case, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton talked about, the Greater Manchester probation region is working with Greater Manchester Police to trace victims of the offences that Mr Barlow committed in the 1980s and 1990s and invite them to join the victim contact scheme. I should also confirm that, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State is applying to the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to direct Mr Barlow’s release on life licence. Probation victim liaison officers will keep victims in the scheme informed of progress with the application for reconsideration.

As for the measures we are taking to make further improvements, particularly to increase transparency and the information available to victims and others, we committed in the root-and-branch review to allowing victims to observe parole hearings for the first time. We also confirmed that we would change the rules to allow for public hearings in some cases. I know that that has come up this morning, and I will say a little bit about the progress that has been made on both those commitments.

Since October last, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings as part of a testing phase that is running in the south-west probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by probation staff, who discuss the parole process with them and ensure that they are directed to relevant support. We are working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to ensure that tailored local support services are readily available, should victims require. We recognise that it could be retraumatising for a victim to hear the evidence that is explored during a parole hearing, so we are initially conducting a relatively small-scale testing phase to ensure we get the processes and support arrangements right. My paramount concern is to ensure that victims can observe the hearing in a way that is safe for them while not compromising the Parole Board’s ability to conduct a fair and rigorous assessment of risk.

The hon. Member for Stockton North asked for an update on progress. During the testing phase so far, victims have welcomed the opportunity to observe hearings. Following their feedback, we are working to improve the process to prepare for its expansion across England and Wales.

Last year, having made changes to the Parole Board rules, we also saw the first public Parole Board hearing, which was in the case of Russell Causley in December. A second public hearing has been agreed by the board and will take place this year in the case of Charles Salvador, formerly known as Charles Bronson. These changes will help to improve public understanding and awareness of the parole process.

In the root-and-branch review, we also committed to reviewing the current guidance and requirements for providing victims with information about the parole process. Our review will identify areas for improving the information that victims currently receive through the victim contact scheme. We will ensure that, where victims have requested it, they receive effective, clear and timely communication about the parole process so that they are sufficiently informed as their case is progressed.

As part of the primary legislative reforms that I referred to earlier, we intend to require the Parole Board to consider written submissions from victims about the release of the prisoner. That will be in addition to the victim personal statement that victims are already permitted to make to the board. Again, that is about doing more to give victims a voice and an opportunity to put their concerns and views to the Parole Board.

I want briefly to cover a few other points that came up during the debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the sex offender treatment programme. The SOTP was discontinued in the light of research evidence, and a new treatment programme has been introduced, which relies less on group work.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, indirectly raised a couple of points—one of which was also raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North—about the important issue of what is in the dossiers that are brought to the Parole Board and the content that comes from different perspectives and analyses. They both asked about not having individual staff recommendations. Reports will continue to provide all the same information, evidence and assessments about the prisoner as they currently do, with the exception of a recommendation or review from the report writer. The reason for that is that it is the Parole Board’s responsibility to decide whether the prisoner is safe to be released or should stay in prison for the protection of the public, based on the entirety of the evidence received. The written reports, including those from prison, probation and psychology staff, and the questioning of witnesses at oral hearings, will continue to provide all the evidence the board needs to enable it to reach fully informed decisions.

Alex Cunningham

The point about the information staff provide and how confident they are that it is being shared is important. I mentioned that staff appear to be concerned that we are releasing prisoners they would never have recommended be released. What does the Minister have to say to them about the credibility of information that is before the Parole Board, and the confidence in the decision?

Damian Hinds

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, the situation he describes could have happened anyway. I reassure him and other colleagues that this is not a diminution of the information that goes into the risk assessment. All of that information is still there, and that totality of information will be considered in the round.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Stockton North asked about the impact assessment on changes to the recommendation system. The right hon. Lady specifically asked about impact on minority ethnic offenders. I want to reassure them that that impact is being monitored, though it is too early to assess on a segmented basis. It is important that we keep such matters under review.

I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, through the actions the Government are taking, victims’ concerns and the protection of the public are at the heart of our vision for the future of the parole system. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important, thoughtful and measured debate, and thank everybody who has taken part—in particular the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, who secured it.

Graham Stringer 

I thank the Secretary of State for applying for reconsideration, and I thank the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, which I agree has been thoughtful. I hope it has brought to light some of the procedural failings of the past that need to be put right, and that there are worrying gaps in the information available, the statistics and the trend in those statistics, particularly the increase in the number of prisoners getting parole. There appears to be no obvious reason for that, and we need to understand it. Thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Murray.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of the Parole Board.

Nick Hardwick Speaks Out

I notice Nick Hardwick, the sacked former head of the Parole Board, is currently touring the country spilling the beans on the back story and recently gave a fulsome interview on the byline website:-    

NICK HARDWICK LIFTS THE LID ON THE JOHN WORBOYS CASE: 'JUSTICE SECRETARY SACKED ME TO SAVE HIS OWN SKIN'

EXCLUSIVE: Former chair of the Parole Board, Nick Hardwick, speaks to Byline about his sacking, the repercussions of the John Worboys case and what it reveals about our conception of justice.

The sacked chair of the Parole Board has said the Justice Secretary got rid of him to save his own position following the controversy over the John Worboys affair.In a wide-ranging interview for Byline, Professor Nick Hardwick said he welcomed the judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision to release the black cab rapist, but disagreed with Justice Secretary David Gauke’s handling of the situation. He also set out the key questions he believes the case raises, its wider repercussions for ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done, and the wheels of reform that must now be set in motion.

When the High Court ruled last month that Worboys would remain in prison while his release was reconsidered by another Parole Board panel, Prof Hardwick was told he had to resign. “If you don’t like the heat, don’t go into the kitchen,” he said, when I asked how it felt to be pushed while being told to jump. I imagined a scenario like this. I thought it would be after we released somebody who committed a serious further offence. I think the Justice Secretary thought his position might become untenable and the way to avoid that was to get rid of me. I don’t think it’s the right decision, but that’s how politicians are.”

The Parole Board is an independent body that decides whether a prisoner is safe to be released once they have served the ‘minimum tariff’ of their sentence. Its decision to release Worboys after nine years in custody was met with public concern and outrage when announced in January.

“I didn’t have a problem with the judicial review taking place, particularly for a very difficult and controversial decision,” the professor of criminology at Royal Holloway, University of London, said. “I don’t think it’s a bad thing that a second panel will now have to look at the case.”

***
John Worboys was sentenced in 2009 for committing rape, four sexual assaults, an attempted sexual assault, an assault by penetration and 12 counts of administering a substance with intent against 12 victims, aged 19 to 33, between 2006 and 2008. All of the women he violated had been in his black cab for a ride home. Despite only being convicted on these 19 counts, it is believed that Worboys actually committed more than 100 rapes and sexual assaults on women in his taxi.

The former stripper and porn actor was given a now-abolished sentence of ‘Imprisonment for Public Protection’ (IPP) for 16 years, meaning he became eligible to be considered for release once he had served half of this, last year.

Prof Hardwick believes his axing from the Parole Board – an organisation he had already advocated needed to become more transparent before the Worboys case – was calculated realpolitik by the Justice Secretary, who had mounted no judicial review of the decision to release Worboys himself.

As the only parties involved in a Parole Board hearing are a prisoner and the Justice Secretary, this was the first time a judicial review had ever been brought by anyone who was not a party to the original proceedings.

While the London Mayor Sadiq Khan and News Group Newspapers also challenged the decision, two of Worboys’ victims were the only ones who succeeded and were considered to have grounds or ‘standing’ to make the challenge.

“David Gauke didn’t think my position was untenable, he thought his position might be untenable,” Prof Hardwick said. “David Gauke thought ‘I’m going to get hammered for this because I didn’t pursue the judicial review’. If we had challenged the victims’ standing, which we didn’t, but if we had, the judicial review would have fallen and Worboys would have been released. The fact the Secretary of State didn’t exercise the powers that only he had would rightly have led him to a lot of criticism.”

Prof Hardwick said he understands people's concerns around Worboys. The 60-year-old, who asked his victims to have a drink with him after lying to them that he had won the lottery, had previously been recognised by professionals as a manipulative character who “managed impressions”.He denied the crimes he was convicted of until nine months before he became eligible to considered for release. He also denied he had committed any other alleged offences, despite admitting to paying compensation to women who had brought civil claims against him.

When he did eventually admit to his convictions, he maintained that the trigger for his behaviour had been the breakdown of his relationship. But, many of his other alleged offences predated this.

***
Prof Hardwick said both the Parole Board and the Ministry of Justice had been mistaken in believing that Worboys’ other alleged offences could not be taken into account when deciding whether he should be released. The judicial review found that the Parole Board should have looked into Worboys’ wider offending and “the extent to which the limited way in which he described his offending may undermine his overall credibility and reliability”.

While the dossier of evidence provided by the MoJ to the Parole Board did reference at least 80 other potential victims, it did not provide any details on these alleged offences. Crucially, details of the successful civil claims brought by some of Worboys’ victims against the Met Police for failing to properly investigate their allegations against him were also not included – despite Justice Green’s ruling in the 2014 case that Worboys had committed more than 105 rapes and sexual assaults on women in his taxi. No mention was also made in the dossier of Worboys' grotesque “rape kit”, which was found in his car containing small bottles of champagne, gloves, a torch, condoms, plastic cups, a vibrator and Nytol tablets.

Despite the lack of details, the High Court said the Parole Board should have made further inquiries into these matters. “The mistake was made by the Ministry of Justice," Prof Hardwick said. "I find it very difficult to see what the panel members could have reasonably done differently with the information they were presented with. The errors by the Ministry of Justice were made by people over whom the Justice Secretary has operational control. He could have dealt with it differently.”

The academic said he does not believe that the result of the second Parole Board hearing into Worboys' case will be “a foregone conclusion at all”, and that while a decision to release him would now be “brave”, it is likely that he could be moved to an open prison.

***
For Prof Hardwick, one of the key questions raised by the Worboys case is “how does a focus simply on risk deal with the public’s wider, reasonable view of justice?”

“If you look at the original furore at the decision, the argument was that Worboys simply hadn’t been punished enough for what he had done,” he said. “The Parole Board’s statutory duty is to function entirely on risk. The first thing you have to consider is whether that is enough. 

For instance, if you were releasing somebody and their behaviour in prison had been poor and they weren’t admitting the entirety of their offence – as in some cases when people refuse to say where the body is – and this is causing a lot of distress to families, that doesn’t necessarily go to their risk after release. 

"If you’re making a decision purely on risk you might say that it doesn’t affect or substantially affect it and we’ll release him. For a lot of people that would seem unjust and that actually your behaviour in prison, your attitude towards your offence and the genuineness of your remorse, ought to affect the decision on whether you are released or not, regardless of whether it’s relevant to your risk. 

"The punishment part of the sentence for the offence should be the tariff that is set by the judge at the time, but it’s reasonable for the Parole Board to take into account what’s happened post-sentence. 

"Maybe Worboys’ attitude towards his offences, the extent to which he was prepared to show genuine remorse and admit his offences should have influenced the decision. At the moment it’s just about risk.”

The former Chief Inspector of Prisons said people also needed to ask “how three forensic psychologists agreed he was safe to release. Three people, without consulting each other, independently, came to a decision that he was safe to release. Are you saying the three forensic psychologists simply made errors or are you saying there’s something fundamentally wrong with the theoretical basis on which they work? The view that these ‘silly female psychologists’ were all hoodwinked by Worboys and if only you’d had a retired, white, elderly, male judge he would have seen through it, I think is a bit of a flawed assumption,” he added.

Referring to an article by two of the psychologists published in The Psychologist, Prof Hardwick said much of the evidence around assessing risk is “counter-intuitive”, which makes having a sensible public discussion around the issue difficult. 

"The fact that somebody minimises their offence is often an indication that they’re ashamed of what they’ve done and is, in fact, an indicator their risk is low. Statistically, deniers and the shame that goes with that is a protective factor. There is a lot of evidence that people who do this spree offending, statistically, once they’ve been caught, they stop at that point. They don’t repeat.”

Along with psychological assessments and consideration of any rehabilitative programmes completed while in prison, offenders' “static” and “dynamic” risk factors are measured. Static are those factors that cannot be changed, for example the nature of an individual’s offences or their experiences in childhood. Dynamic factors focus on that which can change, such as social networks or substance misuse issues. Large data-sets based on these factors are compiled and then used to predict an individual’s likelihood of committing future offences.

“There are some big questions potentially about the over-reliance on forensic psychology and statistical risk models,” Prof Hardwick said. "I’ve had people say to me that the best way to make a decision would be simply to run the data through a computer and a lot of forensic psychologists would say that, what appears to be common sense – the idea that you get an accurate decision by sitting down and talking to someone – is not true because all your prejudices will come into that and a better way to make a decision is to feed someone’s data into a computer. I don’t agree and this is a good example of why that wouldn’t work. I don’t think that provides the complete answer. 

"I think there may well have been other issues about Worboys’ behaviour, post-sentence, while he was in prison, that may have had some bearing on the judgement on whether to release him." All of this is distinct from the issue that it’s not the Parole Board’s job to punish people for the original offence,” he added.

***
Considering the practical and ethical complexities involved in determining the future risk of human beings who have committed crimes, the Parole Board’s serious further offences rate for the past four years has been less than one per cent. A danger for the Parole Board, post-Worboys, is that it will become more risk-averse, Prof Hardwick said.

“The Worboys case has come at a time when you also have concerns about knife crime and police cuts. Crime has gone up the agenda and I think that will create pressure on the Parole Board. Not so much that the release rate changes, but there will be a lot more deferrals because they’ll feel the decision needs to be absolutely watertight and they’ve got to cover every single base. It will take longer to resolve cases and I think the backlog we successfully got rid of will come back.”

He also said he does not think there is "any prospect of legislative reform, not now” for those inmates still serving the abolished IPP sentences. But the Parole Board must change. Prof Hardwick said that, although considerations such as people feeling able to speak freely and the danger of revictimisation must be taken into account, the Parole Board’s hearings should be open to the public and upcoming hearings and results listed online, with the option provided for victims to indicate that they would like to be kept informed. Explanations for decisions and the evidence assessed in each case should also be provided.

The former chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission said there is a “danger that the informality of the process becomes too casual” and believes the organisation would work better as a tribunal-like body, with powers to summon witnesses and evidence and protection and tenure for members, akin to that provided to magistrates – so that they could not be sacked by a justice secretary who disagrees with them when they make an unpopular decision...

***
What are some of the wider issues raised by the Worboys case?

“When you talk about prison reform without talking about the seriousness of some of the offences people commit or their impact on victims, that means when we’re confronted by a very serious individual case, which to some extent is then having a very direct impact on policy, there isn’t a narrative that enables us to deal with it – that enables us to reflect the seriousness of the offence, but also to intervene in the debate and say ‘I don’t think the answer to this is locking more and more people up for longer and longer’, which unless we’re careful will be the result,” Prof Hardwick said.

“I think we need a narrative that doesn’t dismiss people’s concerns about crime or dismiss the harm that even minor crime can do, but, on the other hand, I don’t think the answer simply should be to lock people up for longer. I think we make a mistake by saying the only way we can nowadays reflect society’s condemnation of particular forms of behaviour is by the length of a prison sentence. 

"So, with the parole reforms, I think it is a legitimate question that, in the interests of justice, should the way parole works more reflect people’s concerns? Is trying to make it a pseudo-scientific process of simply looking at risk algorithms getting in the way of justice?   

"One of the problems about personalising it, in the way that sacking me did, is that these broader issues aren’t talked about. It becomes a one-off political interesting squabble. 

"I’m not afraid to talk about punishment but it’s the classic thing that your punishment is going to prison, not being in prison and from that point we will try to rehabilitate. 

"The issue is not simply what stops offenders committing crimes, but what stops people becoming offenders. I think a lot more people would be up for reasonable discussion on this and that’s what we should do and I think the Worboys case raises quite profound issues. 

"I think the people who said it was the wrong decision to release him for various reasons had quite a reasonable point of view. I could also understand why the panel did what they did. The view I disagree with most strongly are the people who say, one way or another, it’s all simple. I don’t think it was simple and I think there’s some quite profound and philosophical and ethical issues in it.”

Hardeep Matharu

Pick of the Week 50

Interesting to read how many criminal justice/probation practitioners disagree with each other about the parole process ref-Worboys. Is that indicative of a broken system or a widespread lack of understanding/knowledge?

*****
That's a good point to make, as you'd expect those working in the system to have a shared understanding of procedures, protocols and responsibilities. The constant chopping and changing of processes doesn't help, nor the loss of experienced hands. It can look like the chaos of Keystone Cops – full of well-meaning energy, but full of cross purposes.

*****
In the meantime various 'Think Tanks' are positioning something that is being branded as Justice Devolution and under its banner there is the chance of another Probation revolution ranging from complete privatisation of Probation services to various hybrids under various local umbrellas. And, I am not hearing any Probation lead on these matters. Again, I ask who is speaking for Probation, who are our leaders and what are they saying? Come on people, wake up, others are deciding your destiny.

*****
It’s the right move. There must be evidence to support prosecutions and all involved must remember its ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way around. “Speaking as a cop, opposed to a citizen, I’m interested in crime. If it’s a long time ago, or it’s very trivial, or I’m not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I’m not going to spend a lot of resources on it. And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.”

*****
Unless it results in spousal assaults and/or sexual assault under a banner of misunderstandings. This woman is dangerous in her trivialisations and has obviously never been a victim. No wonder London crime rates are out of control when the governor tells her officers to dismiss sexualised behaviours. DV used to be termed 'a civil matter' until the law got wise. Shame on u Cressida.

*****
I agree with evidence based prosecution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but the timing of this policy is astounding. It was not taking the allegations of some of the victims (perhaps a presumption of misunderstanding or clumsy behaviour???) that has been the real root of the controversy surrounding the Warboys case. Perhaps it's an attempt of some sort to distance the Met from its failings with Worboys, but it's not the first controversial comments she's made in her short time in charge. Unfortunately, the devolution of justice issues to London will give her a far freer hand to impose her own ideology on the people of the capital. I think we'll be hearing from Cressida (and about her) on a pretty regular basis.

*****
Think what she says is eminently sensible and to attack her is hysterical. All she is saying is that she is only interested in behaviour that passes a criminal threshold, that actually breaches a law that's on the statue book. She rightly says treat all complainants with respect, listen to their complaint, investigate, gather evidence and then see if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. An allegation only becomes a fact if it's corroborated by evidence. What would you prefer? Trial based on allegations, or trial by evidence? Some Valentine cards may be unwelcome, but more likely the result of a misunderstanding than stalking or harassment.

*****
It's amazing how the demand for transparency with regard to the Parole Board is such an urgent priority, whilst all the failures of privatised probation services can be hidden away under the guise of corporate confidentiality. Transparency should be essential to all public services.

*****
Too much process and too many involved. The Worboys and the many other judicial challenges of Parole Board decision show that the Parole Board is not fit for making release decisions. Excepting whole life sentences, there should be fixed release dates for every prisoner. Recall periods should be in proportion to the sentence with a fixed release date, eg automatic release after a third of the remaining sentence period. Simple as.

*****
We have to accept that the Worboys decision was erroneous, but the Board generally do a good job. Some tinkering maybe around transparency and around allowing Boards to be chaired by lay people only under certain circumstances. That said, judges can make erratic chairs also. I know one who appears to sleep through most of proceedings. As much as I despise what has happened to legal aid, I fear that too much was used in paying so called 'independent psychologists' in this case.

*****
Fundamentally, the Parole Board must be doing a good job in evaluating risk if there is only a 1% chance of a parolee committing a further serious offence. The Worboy's case was more about the history of police failures to investigate at the outset and for Worboys to be charged by the CPS to adequately reflect the extent of his offending. Probation was also criticised over victim contact, but in fact all those who wanted to be kept informed were kept informed and those who did not wish victim contact had their wishes respected. The only mud thrown at probation related to some poorly drafted letters.

But as with other notorious cases – Harry Roberts with a parole tariff of 30 years spent 48 years in prison, released aged 78 – the reality is that the public would be quite content to see Worboys die in prison. It's not about future risks, it's about an enduring retribution. That's the irrationality at the heart of this case and no amount of tinkering with the Parole Board will prevent similar moral outrages in the future.

*****
The reconviction rates for serious offenders is low so Parole Board releases on the whole will always look like they’re “doing a good job”. There’s been many successful challenges of Parole Board decisions to not release. Worboys is the first challenge of a decision to release I think. It shows in too many instances Parole Board members are not suitably qualified to make release decisions. You really tell the difference when former judges, probation officers or psychologists are on the panel instead of the local butcher, baker or candlestick maker. An audit of paroled prisoners over the past 5 years would show there have been many, many dodgy Parole Board decisions, inc with illogical rationale and lack of information. This highly subjective process can be disbanded if every prisoner has a fixed released date. Not every country has a Parole Board.

*****
If you abolished indeterminate sentences, it would be compensated for by increasing the length of determinate sentences and we end up, like the US, imposing sentences of hundreds of years. Do you know of any country that does not make use of indeterminate sentences? How do they deal with heinous crimes?

*****
The IPP sentence was a move towards a ‘risk-based penal strategy’, with proportionality taking a back seat to public protection and future risk prediction. It is partly based on the US ‘3 strikes’ policy and it's heavy use of life sentences for a wide range of offences. So to the commenter above, we’re already following our friends across the pond. If the Parole Board system worked we wouldn’t have thousands of IPP’s languishing in prison many years over tariff. Indeterminate type sentences, quite legal under European law, could have fixed release dates and I question whether sentencing judges are happy knowing 15 years later flawed risk assessments will undermine the tariffs they set. 

There is not much point in parole and early release process when we have a prison system that can’t prepare people for release, a Parole Board that hasn’t the expertise and capacity to release, except serial rapists apparently, and a probation system that isn’t resourced to assist once released. We once abolished the death penalty, we ended the pre-90’s ‘one chance’ at parole, we did away with IPP sentences, and whole life sentences are now under scrutiny. There is an argument for an end to early parole and sentences without fixed release dates.

*****
Not every prisoner, probationer and hostel resident has psychological problems or personality disorders. The push to ‘screen’ all for PD without their knowledge is very concerning. So is the drive for PIPE prison wings and hostels which force individuals into psychological interventions to be released or be granted a hostel bed. How much is being spent on this PIPE rubbish? The only ones seeming to benefit are the psychologists!

*****
I absolutely agree re the psychologists benefiting. PD services seem to have created a whole new self-interested and self-absorbed industry. If you ask any MoJ/ NHS psychologist to assess someone for PD or anything else it seems they make it their purpose to find something to 'treat', despite their being very little treatment that service users will actually engage with.

*****
“PD” has become an industry unto itself. “PD” probation officers are running around generating importance for themselves. “PIPE” has become the buzzword for AP’s, which amounts to PSO’s having a group chat about once a week and an inexperienced psychologist telling them what they already know. 

Every offender on my caseload has been “screened in” (not be me) for “personality disorder”. None are aware they have been categorised for “PD” and are being discussed and assessed for psychological interventions (I’m not sure what is actually on offer). Most just need a job and a decent place to live! I get it, psychologist have to eat, but there’s probably more “PD” amongst the Probation managers!

*****
I agree with these sentiments. Probation has moved away from the social to the psychological, and people on our caseloads have been pathologised.

*****
10% of all Approved Premises and 50% of the female AP estate is provided by the Voluntary Sector a great team. Up until 45 years ago all Probation Hostels & Homes were provided and run by voluntary sector providers, some very small and local. It was not until legislation in the early 1970s that Probation Committees were first allowed to directly run Probation and Bail Hostels. Alongside the expansion of new Probation & Bail Hostels run by Probation Committees over the next 30 years, many previously voluntarily managed Probation Hostels were 'taken over' by the Probation Service and their assets absorbed in to the Crown Estate.

*****
This is good news but the demise of supported housing “hostels” and move-on accommodation is just as risky for Probation and the public. Two high risk of harm services have disappeared in my county with a loss of 24 bed spaces. Decent supported housing providers are being edged out of the market by profiteering companies, CRC writ large....

*****
Addiction defines a persons identity. It dictates what you do, and it's what you do that lays the fabrics and blocks that shape identity. The labels that are attached to an addict may compound things, but it's the addiction itself that creates the identity. Physical dependency is painful and traumatic, but short-lived, and the first necessary step to beating addiction. Staying clean is the complicated bit. A whole new identity is needed, a re-creation of the self. 

A three year programme as described above goes a very long way in addressing that need for a changed identity, it should be applauded, but there's also a concern for me. An addict can go to prison for three years, create a new identity for themselves, often a healthy one in the gym, stay off drugs the whole three years, but when that new-found identity is removed upon release, the familiar structures, the people gone that see you as your new identity defines you, many return to their old familiar self's and begin to use again. 

Spending three years in a community described above, helping to build that community, getting a sense of purpose and self worth, and doing so with a shared commonality with the others on the programme must certainly create that new identity. But it's only temporary and there must be a huge sense of loss when the time comes to move on. Those are dangers that I hope the programme can mitigate along the way, and I hope all that are lucky enough to be part of it really find it a life changing experience.

*****
Similar thoughts and I see value in the scheme as you do. For the majority though services need I think to focus on those issues in the local community which requires continuity of investment in community resources.

*****
No one saying anything about a connection between rising violent crime in London and the decimation of probation service as well as criminal breeding grounds that prisons have become? Cuts to public sector including the massive cuts to youth service and policing over past 10 years or so, social services and YOT's mean far less preventative work and opportunities to divert young people from crime. Social media and addiction of millions of young people to violent gaming is also playing a part. In addition reduction in time parents can spend with their children because they are having to work flat out to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not rocket science really!

*****
Now then, MoJ, look what happens when you remove a vast swathe of experienced skilled professionals from the Probation & Prison Services... you have to pay some numpty £millions to "create" an algorithm that assesses risk. Remember OASys? That was a fuck up too. Will you ever learn? No! I can't wait to read MoJ's PR about lowest prisoner numbers since the beginning of time, etc etc etc, with Young Rory singing the praises.

*****
It's my view that the third sector and the private sector are just two heads of the same dog. They structure their corporate arrangements very similar, and reward those at the top with obscene amounts of money and associated benefits. The third sector get government funding, EU funding, Lottery funding, have reduced business rates and tax and VAT breaks. They also benefit greatly from a huge amount of unpaid labour carried out by volunteers. Yet they're still prepared to involve themselves in anything that can bring in a few quid despite what reputational damage it attracts. The work programme being just one. The private sector get millions from government contracts, local councils, PCCs. They're allowed to limit their liabilities despite the vast amounts of money that they pay to shareholders, and can hide pretty much anything they want through a corporate confidentiality clause. 

It doesn't seem to matter that every inspection and report produced shows damning failures and poor practice, it's always a cry for more money. More, more, more! It's high time the government gave both sectors a good hard kick up the arse, and remind them that when they're using public funds they need to be honest brokers, and deliver the services that are being paid for in the way they need to be provided. TR is in its fourth year, the conversation should be about how to improve services and working conditions, and not about how the spoils should be shared out.

*****
Police cuts are of course going to have an impact on crime. But the rise of violent crime in London shouldn't be seen just as a criminal justice issue. It's the amalgamation and the coming together of years of shite social policies, and our neoliberal right wing Conservative government should harbour much of the blame. Much of the explanations been given relate to gangs and drugs. But if you have a drug policy that leaves drugs in the domain of criminal fraternities, then the relationship between gangs and drugs will always exist. But it's education and housing policy too. Leaving school with few or no qualifications from a class size of 40 and over pupils and living somewhere like Broadwater farm or Tower Hamlets is likely to leave the option of benefits or a zero hour contract at KFC.

Housing is a national issue, but a huge problem in London. But to raise funds many local councils are selling off social housing to the private sector. That's resulting in high concentrations of the poorest and socially deprived people being pushed into certain areas. Some call it social cleansing, but it certainly creates ghettos and large areas where social deprivation is the common defining factor. It's not drugs and gangs, just as its not drugs, drones and mobile phones that's caused the prison crisis. It's failed social and political policy. It's austerity and the decisions that are being taken to combat vicious cuts, and the government need to accept resolution will only come from being more socially oriented because the free market isn't going to fix it, the free market approach is part of the problem.

*****
T'ain't rocket science, is it? Poor social policy, closure of youth services, schools further and further away from home, bedroom tax breaks up communities, social care services decimated, family centres closing etc etc etc. Whaddaya know, an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime. What are the causes? Too much UK money going into the hands of a small number of individuals instead of into public services. And if I hear 'legal highs' blamed for anything else, I am going to scream.

*****
I used to work in Approved Premises before taking early retirement. Over the years (1998 - 2016) I attended many different training courses including OASys. It was on this course that I pointed out that at Approved Premises we occasionally accepted individuals on bail who had no previous convictions and were pleading 'not guilty' to their alleged offence. Despite this they were still subjected to an assessment process which labelled them as an 'offender'. The course tutor was unable to give a satisfactory answer. I always thought that Probation staff should be non judgement.

*****
I'm sure prison officers on the landings, already struggling with understaffing, violence, drugs, and concerned for their safety, will really appreciate trips back and forward to the office to input data in real time. Where does all this data end up?

*****
There isn't a lack of information, there's a lack of rehabilitation. Reform must be music in the ears of IT consultants. It's the old mantra of doing the same things all over again and expecting a different result. Bring in Cambridge Analytica - they know a thing or two about influencing people.

*****
A realistic quantity of quality time in contact with clientele is absolute bottom line for rehabilitation. Then by all means angst about definitions and achievement of "quality". Then fart-arse about with technology if you must. Sigh.

*****
I find it pretty amazing that Amber Rudd identifies drugs as being one of the main drivers for the creation of gangs and rising violent crime, and yet say nothing on how she intends to tackle that driver. Drugs are here, and they're not going to go away. Drugs create all kinds of problems and simply taking an ideological view that says "drugs are harmful so we won't tolerate them", is frankly to my mind idiotic and irresponsible. 

There will always be an illegal trade in drugs as there is with their legalised counterparts tobacco and alcohol, but the war on drugs is a war that doesn't need to be fought. Take them out of the hands of criminals, take the huge revenues they generate and the potential business opportunities available and do good things for society. Be pragmatic about drugs, accept they're a problem that's not going away and manage that problem in the best way possible.

*****
This is increasingly tiresome. Reams and reams of paper to tell us that what we all said would happen has happened and that the train crash we all predicted has taken place. Another enquiry taking months to tell us what we already know.

The problem with Probation is that the Prison management that took it over disrespected it, devalued it and mismanaged it. Carter put the wrong people in charge and they screwed it up completely. Nothing more to say. The solution is to extricate Probation from the grip of the Prison Service and allow it to operate independently. That will at least give us a chance. Whilst the Prison Service management continue to see command and control as a means of managing the Probation arm of the HMPPS and whilst those same people think that the private sector have anything to offer Probation, the whole ethos of the model will remain compromised and beyond repair. This was said BEFORE this shit storm started and they all know it.

*****
It's just a process of marking time until the contracts can be re-tendered. Halfway through now, keep talking about it and the seven years will soon pass. Maybe what should be being considered is the cost of probation contracts next time around. It's bound to be double if not more then the original arrangements or there won't be many willing to take them on.

*****
"An important aspect of self-legitimacy is the extent to which practitioners feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation (Bradford and Quinton 2014). In our view, the current situation means that the self-legitimacy of many practitioners is, at the very least, in some doubt. This in turn may lower morale and foster discontent with the quality services provided to those under supervision".

A few days ago, under pressure, I cancelled an appointment to visit a vulnerable, traumatised woman in prison, in order to get ahead of the "performance" priorities. I didn't seek authority for this decision, and when I mentioned it to my manager, it was nodded through. After an afternoon battering a keyboard, and hitting every performance target I had, I came home feeling... like a bit of me had died. Lord knows how my client feels, I don't, seeing as I wasn't there.

*****
This blog post more than most struck a chord with me. I did not start in the Probation profession to make my fortune, I had a zeal to make a tangible difference in all quarters that we were tasked with. I valued being a part of a cohesive profession that reached beyond itself and sought to connect with all who had similar ambitions. I was interested in creating a relationship with the people I worked with and engaging with the evidence of what worked. I valued the experience of those before me and learning from them. I valued professional supervision and on-going professional development. My skills after a decade and more of working with people is way beyond what I could have imagined when I started. When we talk about culture, it is hard to reconcile my ideas with making a profit and dividend payments to shareholders. Culture and values matter to me and those who we serve I believe.

*****
As a client of the probation service, this article has given me a very valuable insight into the difficulties faced by those who want to actually help people better their lives. It must be soul destroying to be under the influence of such regressive policies. Hats off to anyone who sticks at it. Surely the tide will have to turn soon.

*****
Attachment, responsibility, purpose, are the cornerstones for a reasonably stable life. For some, those things can't be achieved with other people. There can be many reasons why that might be so. Todays blog reminds of a book I once read many years ago (80s I think), called life after life. I've had a quick search this morning but can't find it, though there seems to be quite a few with the same title. It was really a collection of observational studies on half a dozen people that had served life sentences and how they coped (or didn't) upon release. One of the people in the book was a woman, who on release quickly found her life in chaos. She was recalled many times and the time spent on recall surpassed the time served on her original sentence. 

After serving 7years on her last recall, someone, perhaps her probation officer, suggested she might like to keep a pet, and she found herself with a dog. From that moment on her life changed, no more chaos, no more offending, and no more recalls. A sense of contentment or even happiness perhaps? Whatever it was, the animal had the most amazing and positive impact on the woman's life.

*****
If vetting is being linked to the issuing of laptops, then it would be legitimate to question if it's the integrity of the IT systems and software that's driving the need for vetting and not the user.

*****
I cannot think why. If it is, then as usual the staff are punished and made to jump through hoops for probation’s failures. Vetting or not, there will always be one person that leaves their laptop on the train! And Vetting doesn’t make IT more secure, not so long ago I recall reading about a number of police prosecuted for sharing PNC details. They were vetted! Imagine what your probation Vetting coordinators sitting in your offices will be doing with all your confidential information about you and your family?

*****
Personal view only, and it relates to purpose and identity, both of which I feel probation has struggled with in recent years. If probation is an organisation that provides assistance and support to help offenders steer their lives back onto the right track and help them maintain a stable existence (as probation once did) then vetting is not going to be an issue beyond the normal CRB check. However, once probation positions itself, and more and more sells itself, as an agency of public protection, then it becomes an 'agent of the state' and can have no real objection to being subjected to the same criteria that the state impose on other public protection agencies such as police. 

If you see probation as a service that assists offenders, helps with rehabilitation and are of course "constantly mindful" of public protection, I think you have reason to complain about the level of vetting. If however you view probation as a service of public protection that also provides some assistance where possible to the offenders you manage, then I think you have to accept the level of vetting other public protection agencies are subjected to.

*****
Canada is in the process of legalising illicit drugs, and the Republic of Ireland, a country where possession of a condom makes you a sinner, is considering legalisation of cannabis and allowing Dutch style coffee shops. Andrew Boff the very right wing Conservative member of the London Assembly has caused a huge row by calling for the legalisation of drugs in response to Amber Rudds violent crime strategy. Does the legalisation and regulation of drugs make a society more tolerant? No it doesn't. It makes it more responsible. How, in probation for example, can you help someone with a drug problem if disclosure of use is also the admission of an offence? 

Drugs are a blot on society, but only because they're management, supply, constitution and regulation are left in the control of criminal gangs. The USA's prohibition era is a perfect example of what happens when you ban supply but demand remains. There will always be a demand for drugs, and a big demand, so there will always be someone prepared to supply them. It's the basic economic model of supply and demand that our conservative government are so proud to boast about. Accept the problem and take ownership of it, otherwise it will just get worse. It's not being tolerant about drug use, it's being responsible about the impact drugs have on society.

*****
Not a vote winner the liberal government in Canada were deemed a few years ago to have no chance however standing on a platform including legalising cannabis soon changed that. For the record it is due to come into force in July and the person who has been in charge of implementation is the ex chief police officer of Toronto.

****
I don't see why an organised pilot and investigation into the pros and cons of drug legalisation could not be conducted in the UK. Select three areas defined as socially deprived, that already have a drug problem and high unemployment, allow local government in those areas to produce and sell cannabis in an organised way for 18 months, and then assess what impact it has had socially and economically on that area. I think the economic benefits would be considerable to areas like Blackpool, Grimsby or Sunderland, and the information gathered on drug related crime and unemployment would help inform national drug policy. If no benefits are realised, then just pull the plug.

*****
Any legalisation of drugs would have to remain under strict State control. Privatising or outsourcing any aspect of drug legalisation to corporations such as Sodexo, Interserve, G4s etc, would just be the same as handing back control to the criminals.

*****
I'm very disappointed with the response today's blog has attracted. Every probation officer in the country must have a case load of people that have drug issues. But no one has anything to say. It's very different if the blog is about pay and conditions, privatisation, or being let down by the unions. Everyone's shouting then. You're in it for the money, or you're in it for the cause. It's the safe place, or make a difference. Everyone makes there own mind up.

*****
There’s two comments above, perhaps from probation officers, and mine makes 3. I think it’s only nowadays PO’s are straight-laced-stick-up-the-backside types. Many of the older generation were the weed smoking type so I’m sure many have a view on this issue. In terms of the article at hand, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I support drug legalisation, taxation, etc. On the other, I do not believe it is necessarily the best way to resolve the drug problem. Legal or illegal, drugs are here to stay, but if we can’t have a proper debate about making alcohol illegal then how can we debate making drugs legal. 

I think the way forward is in pilot cities for cannabis legalisation in franchise “coffee shops” and a plant or two permitted for home growing. Other drugs may be available on prescription, such as cannabis oil, heroin, etc, but I don’t think we’ll be reverting back to opium dens any time soon. What I don’t support is this myth that legalising drugs will reduce violent crime because there are many other factors involved. This is political bullshit and not a basis for legalising drugs. Amber Rudd is talking out her backside, as is this silly Adam Smith Institute. For the record in some areas you’re more likely to be mugged buying a bottle of wine from your local offy where all the pissheads congregate than from your dealer who discreetly delivers to your house after hitting him up on Snapchat. Nobody is “going down dark alleyways”!!

*****
An appalling chapter in the history of the British Criminal Justice System and in UK politics. Disgraceful not only because it happened but because it took so many ignorant people to undermine the existing professional organisation. They were warned again and again but wanted their nose in the trough without any comprehension of what was at stake. Carter, Wheatley, Spurr and the King Rat himself, Failing Grayling - all complicit in the debacle and compromised by the obvious inadequacies of Prison Service management. Right wing thinking revealed again for what it is; concrete thinking, prejudicial and, fundamentally, stupid.

*****
In the light of the many reports, whether official, anecdotal or whistleblower, let us be totally & brutally clear what the TR project has led to. It's not - and was never - about the provision of an effective service; its not about the rehabilitation of those sent to work with probation staff by the Courts, either directly or via prison; and its not about having a skilled professional workforce. It is THIS: "All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ." Accountancy, NOT accountability.

*****
After surviving 3 years of MTCnovo I thought I was unshockable. Yesterday was the first day I have felt ashamed to be working as a probation officer. All offender managers have been instructed to inform their people managers (SPOs in MTCnovo parlance) how many service users report after 7pm and how often. Then we heard rumours of the bombshell - evening accredited groupwork programmes will not be offered by London CRC in the coming weeks/months.

For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable. If true, and my sources are reliable, this is truly a cynical cost-cutting exercise. Cynical because if they have any sense they must know that there will be "blow-back" from the Magistracy/Judiciary. They may be forced to back pedal, but in the interim they will save themselves a few more shekels to earn their annual bonuses.

Offender Managers in London CRC from the 1st May will no longer have face to face contact with our administrators when they move to a central admin hub in Bromley. We were not consulted about this move, it was yet another diktat. The fact that the powers-that-be are looking at how many service users report after 7pm strongly suggest they will close some offices at 7pm but maybe have regional offices for reporting after 7pm?

I thought the point of TR and the involvement of the private sector was to be "consumer" oriented, providing an improved flexible service compared with the dead hand of the inflexible public sector. Instead I am seeing the dismantling of a once proud service before my eyes like a slow motion car crash. God help us all.